As a debate judge, my evaluation centers on the logical coherence of debaters' arguments, emphasizing the clarity and strength of claims supported by relevant evidence and sound reasoning. I closely observe their communication skills, considering articulation, persuasion, and non-verbal cues. Critical thinking is paramount, as I assess how effectively debaters engage with opposing viewpoints, showcasing intellectual agility and a nuanced understanding of the topic. The depth of research, demonstrated by well-supported arguments grounded in credible sources, adds weight to my evaluation. Additionally, I recognize the importance of time management, appreciating debaters who balance substantive content with adherence to time constraints. My approach prioritizes objectivity, devoid of personal biases, with a commitment to providing constructive feedback that fosters growth in the art of debate.

I am a parent judge. I have previously judged PF debates in a few tournaments.

• Please speak clearly, not too fast and do not spread.
• I prefer civil and respectful debates and be courteous to your opponents and partners.
• I like clearly articulated arguments with well documented evidence.
• I value consistent arguments.
• Refute the logic aside from quantitative data.
• Signpost at the beginning of your speech.
• Arguments brought up last minute will not win you that round.
• Speakers should keep their own time.

I do not disclose unless required by tournament rules.

Good luck and most importantly have fun!

I am a lay judge, although I understand LD and the rules and expectations. I value truth over tech and I expect solid cases, and logical refs. I don't place too much emphasis on value clash. I don't want to see overly aggressive debate, be a good sport. I will not flow if you spread, I will not evaluate progressive argumentation. Weighing, impacts, and signposting with good evidence and solid refs will win you my ballot.

Hello Debaters,

I am Veena Devarakonda, a parent judge and am happy to meet you all. I truly care about what you have to say. My job is to give you all the points you deserve! So, please help me do that.

Please speak slowly and have clearly outlined arguments. I will attempt to flow but if you speak too fast, I may not be able to keep up. It's your job to make sure my flow is organized through your speeches. Winning arguments are the ones that are enforced, brought up, and defended throughout the round. Any arguments brought up last minute will not win you the round. I value presentation as well, but as long as your speech is understandable, that is good.

Please be courteous to your teammates and opponents. If I see any condescending behavior you will automatically be downed. If you lose one round, you always have room to grow in the future and improve. Most importantly, have fun and all the best!

I like clarity over speed. Speak clearly and confidently so I do not miss important details that you are mentioning.

You got this!

Hi! I consider myself a Novice judge . Thus, please tailor to my level of experience .

Please articulate clearly and with good volume. I wear a hearing aide.

If you have the option, I prefer normal rate of speech vs rapid fire.

I value politeness.

Thank you.

I'm a father of two kids, a middle schooler (participating), and a 3rd grader. Personally, learning the ropes of being a good unbiased judge, who is more than happy to share my thoughts at the end with constructive feedback. I would like the participants to ensure they keep time, make coherent arguments delivered in a legible way instead of going at breakneck speed, be respectful to the opposition, and try to have fun along with learning.

I am a first year parent judge. Looking for clear arguments with good refutals and defense. Preferably no spreading. Good luck!

Hi, this is Ayesha Iqbal. I'm a parent judge and am excited and looking forward to being a judge. I have a little experience in judging, as I have been at multiple different tournaments over the past few years. I will be looking for kids who are persuasive with their content and delivery. And not rushing or speaking too fast, as it will help me to understand and judge better.

There is no greater joy or reward than making a difference in a person’s life.

Cal Berkeley Sociology Undergraduate Alumni 2019

Cal Berkeley Social Welfare Graduate Alumni 2021

Stanford Law School Legal-Social Work Collaborative

Current UCSF Clinical Social Worker

-this is my first time judging a debate tournament

-practiced law for ten years, currently inactive

I'm a parent judge as my daughter participates in debate.

kindly please send me your case before the round starts.

jysjin@yahoo.com

Don't Speak too fast but clearly. Definitely no mumbling. If I can't get your arguments down and fully understand what you're saying, then you have lost the round.

Be specific with your contention, warrants and impacts as I'll vote my ballot based on those.

I will not flow everything, but take notes.

Be polite, respectful and patient to the other.

Hi! This is my second time judging. I try to flow, however, I do not know the intricacies of speech and debate. I hope to be fair and give feedback that will be helpful to you. Good luck!

I am a parent judge. Please be clear with your arguments. Read them in a manner that is comprehensible. If you read them too fast I won't be able to flow properly. Try not use to use extremely technical terms. If you do please explain them. Finally, be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

I'm a lay judge that believes the winning team should have clear arguments they extend and defend well with impacts. If you talk too fast I may miss what you are trying to communicate so spread at your own risk. I don't have experience with theory or ks but I will understand framework if it is explained well. I want your evidence to back up what you are saying and prove why your evidence is more true than your opponents. Please be polite and respectful of your opponents. Good luck!

Hello Everyone,

I have judged several formats like Congress but newer to Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I will be on the learning curve as well as some of the students here today.

Please be nice to one another! I'm looking for kids who demonstrate knowledge of the topic and confidence in their delivery. Please try not to use technical jargon! Please try to cater to me being a novice judge. Rapid fire is not what I am used to. As a parent judge, I also judge on respect to one another.

I am looking forward to hearing from students!

I prefer moderate speed. I vote for clear speaking and convincing arguments.

As a debate judge with experience in LD, PF, and Parli formats, I prioritize clarity, logical argumentation, and effective communication. I appreciate debaters who present well-structured cases, support their points with strong evidence, and engage respectfully with their opponents. I value strategic thinking, adaptability, and the ability to respond to crossfire effectively. Overall, my emphasis is on evaluating the quality of arguments, adherence to debate rules, and the ability to convey ideas persuasively.

This is my first judging experience. I am however an avid debater and have since school days been a keen participant in a variety of debate competitions. Debates and the research behind it helps to widen one’s aperture around facts, experiences as well as a better appreciation of diversity of thoughts. Continuous and shared learning is a very powerful tool that goes a long way towards personal growth.

This is my second year judging. Below are the criteria I use as a guideline for judging.

1) I would like to focus on quality rather than quantity - this is to say, I would much rather you speak clearly in a manner I can follow you rather than you try to complete X words/min, and say something that I don't follow.

2) I grade off of the flow of the argument and weighting. I am not a truth judge.

3) You have to understand your case do not just read the cards you have. Use logical thinking to sway me to vote in your favor.

4) 0.2 per rude or socially inaccurate comment.

5) Bringing up new ideas in the final focus will cost you.

Good luck & Have fun!

As of Oct 6 2023, this is my first ever opportunity to be a judge for an event like this. I am eager and look forward to the event this Saturday - Oct 7, 2023.

I have judged and been a reviewer at work in various capacities. I understand this is different, and am looking forward to this.

As a judge, I will stay by the guidelines for LD as indicated below -

<> Mastery on your Case Analysis​

<> Structure or organization of your speeches.

<> Emphasis on Value & Criterion presented

<> Presentation of Evidence

<> Quality of Refutation

<> Demonstration of Courtesy

I don't particularly have extensive experience in debate, however, I have judged a few tournaments, mostly PF and LD. Please absolutely do not spread. Also in events with cross-x, I prefer less rapid fire style questioning. I really value signposting and clear voter issues. Please be respectful to your opponents. I'm willing to believe any argument in the round as long as it's properly backed up and defended.

I love debating and hearing debates :-)

The primary aspect I judge on is the persuasive capability of the debater/s. So, present your positions in a clear & cogent narrative, speak confidently and showcase your mastery of the topic, especially in Rebuttal and CF rounds.

At the same time, I also pay attention to the flow. It will be difficult to make a comeback from multiple dropped or insufficiently addressed flows.

Keep your focus till... well the Final Focus. I wont decide on the winner till the last word is spoken.

If you are speaking too fast for me, I will call CLEAR. In general, clarity and efficiency trumps over speed & quantity.

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

I am a parent judge and new to debate tournament. Kindly please speak clearly and not too fast. Logic and consistency give your more chance to win the ballot. Enjoy the tournament!

hey! i'm ruoxi (i go by lexi), and i'm a current junior at college prep competing in pf

add me to the chain: rzhu@college-prep.org

i prefer email chains over google docs, but if both teams want to use docs then that's fine with me

~~~

NOVICES:

speak clearly and at your own pace. make your arguments clear and walk me through them step by step. try to line-by-line in first rebuttal, frontline + line-by-line in second rebuttal, and collapse + weigh in summary and final focus if you can (if you don't know what any of this means, feel free to ask me at any point), but don't feel pressured to follow all those small technicalities - focus on giving clear + concise speeches and tell me why i should vote for you!

also: don't worry about messing up! debate's a difficult activity, and i'm super glad you're trying it out :) if you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask me before or after the round. remember to have fun!!!

~~~

tl;dr

not hypertech so run prog at ur own risk

preflow before round

literally read anything, i'll try my best to evaluate whatever u read

tech > truth, i prefer substance rounds but framework or framing is also fine (i'm most familiar with sv or extinction)

signpost + collapse + extend + weigh + WARRANT EVERYTHING PLEASE

speed is fine but it rly comes down to clarity, send a speech doc if you're planning to go fast

have cut cards for everything, i will be annoyed if u send a link and tell ur opponents to ctrl+f

cut and warranted cards > warranted analytics > "card says so"

don't be offensive or discriminatory, obviously

~~~

JV/VARSITY PF:

my decision:

i look towards weighing first, then to whichever side wins the weighing, then to whichever side loses the weighing, then to case ink, then presumption (i'll presume loser of coin flip if there's a flip - if not, i'll presume first speaking team)

in round:

speed is fine as long as u send a doc but in general: clarity > speed, especially for taglines

i won't flow off the doc (it's mostly just for faster evidence sharing) unless u tell me to look at a specific card, so still prioritize clarity

if i can't understand u i'll yell "CLEAR" - after 3 times, i'll stop intervening, and u should just hope that i can understand u. please don't let it ever get to that point

second rebuttal has to frontline - if you don't, i'll almost always sign my ballot for the other team

collapse and weigh in summary

defense is not sticky, everything you want me to evaluate must be in ff

extend every part of ur link chain in both summary and ff

time yourselves and ur opponents

i'll try to listen during cross but i won't take notes, if it's important then bring it up in a speech (altho cross is binding imo, just bring it up in a later speech)

it's ok to be aggressive in cross but don't be rude!

flex prep is fine, make sure you're timing and keeping track

skipping grand for 1 min of prep is good with me

tag-team cross is also fine

if it takes longer than one min for you to pull up a card then either

1. make it an analytic
2. find the card but the additional time comes out of your prep

if you go for a good, strategic turn that will make me very very happy (doesn't guarantee the ballot tho)

new cards must be introduced by second summary at the latest

evidence:

you must have cut cards for everything!!! esp if you're paraphrasing

please just don't misconstrue evidence :( if the other team calls it out and tells me to vote u down because of it, if it's bad enough i'll give them the ballot

i won't ask for/look at evidence unless i'm told to do so in a speech or unless it's impossible to reach a decision without it

speaks:

i start at a 28.5 and go up/down from there

i honestly think speaks are kind of stupid so the only reason why you'd get super low speaks is if you were rude/annoying during cross, offensive, etc. etc.

regular speaks:

+0.2 if you send speech docs for constructive

+0.1 if you send speech docs for rebuttal

+0.2 if you disclose (lmk before the round)

+0.2 if you don't paraphrase constructive

+0.1 if you don't paraphrase rebuttal

fun speaks:

auto 30s for your team if u send me ur entire blockfile for this topic before the round starts :)))

^ this is a joke but if u want to i won't stop u

+0.5 if you spin whenever you read a turn

+0.5 if you bring me good snacks

+0.3 if you rap 15 seconds of your speech (any speech)

+0.2 if you make a harry potter reference

+0.2 if you make me laugh at any point during the round

prog:

send speech docs regardless of speed

k's / tricks:

run at ur own risk, i'm not super comfortable evaluating these so don't run them unless you can explain them very very well

theory:

i still prefer substance, but if you must run theory i'm most familiar with para & disclo

in general, i think is paraphrasing bad and disclosure is good, but i won't hack for either of those

anything else must be explained in meticulous detail

i default no rvis, competing interps, and drop the debater (altho u can def change my mind during the round on any of these using proper warranting)

ivi:

these are cool

if it can be read as a shell then just read it as a shell tho it makes everything cleaner

other (tricks, etc.)

run at ur own risk :(

~~~

OTHER EVENTS:

i only have experience with pf (i debated novice policy for like one tournament freshman year) so please go easy on me and explain every. single. thing.

~~~

check out my partner ella's paradigm here, she's very cool